The duty of the court to consider subsequent events with a material bearing on the case and the proper procedure for serving a Caveat in the proceedings.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Review Petitioner (respondent No.3 in LPA no.32/2018) is seeking review/recalling/setting aside of judgment and order dated 31.05.2018, passed by this Court in LPA No. 32/2018 titled “Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of J&K and others”, by virtue whereof said appeal, filed by appellant-respondent No.3 herein, has been disposed of with a direction to official respondents to proceed in the matter strictly in terms of Government Order No.132-PDD of 2018 dated 15.05.2018 and to that extent order of learned Writ Court was modified.

2. Review petitioner claims that by order No.37-DCP of 2018 dated 27.04.2018, he was transferred and adjusted in place of appellant (respondent No.3 herein). In compliance to order dated 27.04.2018, he joined the office of Executive Engineering Electric M&RE Division, Kathua. By order dated 01.05.2018, he was adjusted in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Store, Sub Division, Kathua, and he, accordingly, submitted his joining report on 01.05.2018.

3. Mr. Salathia, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner, has stated that appellant-respondent No.3 herein, in order to harass Review Petitioner, filed a writ petition, bearing SWP No.797/2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2018. Feeling aggrieved thereof, appellant-respondent No.3 herein filed LPA, which was disposed of with a direction to official respondents to proceed in the matter strictly in terms of Government Order No.132-PDD of 2018 dated 15.05.2018 and to that extent order of learned Writ Court was modified. Learned counsel has contended that despite Review Petitioner having filed Caveat, he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard and this Court has passed the order under review, without hearing the other side. Thus, it is contended that had he been granted an opportunity of being heard, he would have placed necessary information and documents on record to show that the case of the appellant-respondent No.3 herein was not maintainable.

4. On the other hand, Mr A K Sawhney learned counsel appearing for Mr Vinod Kumar Gupta-respondent No.3 herein (Appellant in LPA), has submitted that the Review Petitioner in the guise of the present Review Petition is trying to re-argue the matter, which is impermissible under law. In a Review Petition, the sine qua non is “error apparent” on the face of record and in the present case there is no error except for an attempt to re-argue the matter. His further submission is that Review petitioner has made two fold submissions: firstly, by Government Order No. 132-PDD of 2018 dated 15.05.2018, transfers in Power Development Department were banned, which fact was never brought on record of writ petition; secondly, that the Caveat so filed with the LPA was not considered and no notice issued to Caveator- Review petitioner.

5. Insofar as first contention with regard to Order dated 15.05.2018 is concerned, it is contended on behalf of respondent No.3 that the judgment passed by this Bench in LPA is very clear that the transfer and posting of the Review Petitioner had not been implemented till 15.05.2018 as no charge was handed over by respondent No.3-Vinod Kumar Gupta, which is evident from the communication dated 15.05.2018 issued by Executive Engineer, Electric, M&RE Division, Kathua. He has also submitted that the Government Order dated 15.05.2018 is a subsequent event after writ petition was filed and dismissed, therefore, any such subsequent event, which has a direct bearing on the Lis, can be taken note of and the Court is duty bound to see if the situation and circumstances have changed or still persist. Therefore, this Court has correctly appreciated subsequent Government Order dated 15.05.2018 and taken it on record, and on the basis whereof the LPA has been decided. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has cited the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in a case titled Kedar Nath Aggarwal and another v. Dhanraji Devi and ano